Introduction: Epidural analgesia is considered a gold standard in obstetric anaesthesia and analgesia. However, in situation when it is contraindicated, unwanted by the patient or simply unavailable, remifentanil can be an excellent alternative. The goal of our study is to analyse the side effects of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV PCA) with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during delivery. Material and methods: This study included 155 pregnant women in term for birth, divided into 2 groups: a remifentanil group (RG), and an epidural group (EG). Patients in the RG received intravenous PCA with remifentanil, while patients in the ЕG received epidural analgesia with programmed intermittent bolus dosing. Our primary outcome was maternal safety; the secondary outcome was neonatal safety. Results: The results present a significantly lower SaO2 value of the parturients in the RG (96.95 ± 1.4 vs 98.22 ± 0.6), and a significantly higher respiratory rate per minute in the EG at all time points after the onset of analgesia (20.85 ± 1.4 vs 18.67 ± 0.9). There was more frequent sedation, nausea and vomiting in the RG, while in the EG there was a more elevated temperature, itching and irregularities in the CTG record. Regarding the newborn, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the Apgar scores, pH, pCO2, pO2, and bicarbonate, while there was a significantly lower value of the base excess in the RG group. Conclusion: PCA with remifentanil is safe for the mother, foetus and the newborn, with minimal side effects. Continuous respiratory monitoring, oxygen supply and following of all consensus recommendations are mandatory.
BACKGROUND: There is a widespread belief that spinal anaesthesia in patients with preeclampsia might cause severe hypotension and decreased uteroplacental perfusion. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence and severity of spinal induced-hypotension in preeclamptics and healthy parturients. METHODS: Total of 78 patients (40 healthy and 38 preeclamptic) undergoing a C-Section with spinal anaesthesia were included. Spinal anaesthesia was performed with a mixture of 8-9 mg isobaric 0.5% bupivacaine, 20 mcg fentanyl and 100 mcg morphine (total volume 2.2-2.4 ml). Blood pressures (BP)-SBP, DBP, MAP were recorded non-invasively before performing spinal anaesthesia and at 2.5 minutes after a spinal puncture. RESULTS: The BP falls (%) from baseline were significantly greater in the healthy parturients compared to those with preeclampsia (25.8% ± 10.1 vs 18.8% ± 17.0 for SBP, 28.5% ± 8.8 vs 22.5% ± 10.4 for DBP, and 31.2% ± 14.2 vs 18.2% ± 12.6% for MAP, p < 0.05). The incidence rate of hypotension in the preeclamptics was 25% compared to 53% in healthy parturients (p < 0.001). Higher doses of vasopressors both ephedrine (16.5 ± 8.6 vs 6.0 ± 2.0 mg) and phenylephrine (105 ± 25 mg) in the healthy women were required. There was no need for phenylephrine treatment in the preeclamptic group. CONCLUSION: This study showed that the incidence and severity of spinal-induced hypotension in preeclamptic patients are less than in healthy women. The use of low dose spinal anaesthesia also contributed to this statement.
Neuraxial anesthesia is recommended as a well-accepted option to minimize the perioperative side effects in the geriatric patients. The available data from the current researches have shifted the focus from the conventional approach to spinal anesthesia to the concept of low dose local anesthetic combined with opioids. What remains clear from all these studies is that hemodynamic stability is much better in patients who received low-doses of intrathecal bupivacaine in combination with opioids, which is possibly result of a potent synergistic nociceptive analgesic effect and their minimal potential effects on sympathetic pathways thus minimizing spinal hypotension. Spinal anesthesia with 5–10 mg of 0.5% heavy bupivacaine, fentanyl 20 mcg and 100 mcg of long-acting morphine added to the perioperative plan decreased the incidence of spinal hypotension and improved perioperative outcomes in the geriatric patients undergoing (low segment) surgical procedures. These findings may be of interest in the gynecologic geriatric surgery also in which area there are very few studies concerning the use of low-dose concept.
Propofol (2,6-diisopropylphenol) is the most common intravenous anesthetic used in modern medicine. It is postulated that individual differences in genetic factors [polymorphism of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)] in the genes encoding metabolic enzymes, molecular targets and molecular binding sites of propofol can be responsible for susceptibility to propofol effects. The aim of our study was to investigate the influence of the cytochrome P450 2B6 isozyme CYP2B6 (rs3745274), γ-aminobutyric acid type A (GABAA) receptor α1 subunit GABRA1 (rs2279020) and ATP-binding cassette subfamily B member 1 ABCB1 (rs1045642) gene polymorphisms on propofol therapeutic outcomes in the patients undergoing abdominal hysterectomy. Ninety patients aged 29-74 years, with different ethnicities were included in this study. The presence of polymorphisms was analyzed using TaqMan SNP genotype analysis on Stratagene MxPro 3005P real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). The distribution of all three genetic variants was within the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. There was no significant difference (p >0.05) in the allelic frequencies of polymorphic variants and genotype distributions between adult and older patients and between patients of different ethnicities. Our study did not detect a statistically significant influence of the CYP2B6 (c.516G>A), GABRA1 (c.1059+15G>A) and ABCB1 (c.3435T>C) variants on the variability of clinical parameters (doses for induction in anesthesia, additional doses, induction time and wake time after anesthesia and side effects of propofol). However, the observed trend on the possible influence of the CYP2B6 (c.516G>A) and GABRA1 (c.1059+15G>A) variants warrant an extension of these studies on a larger number of patients.
Introduction. Remifentanil is becoming more and more popular for labor analgesia as an alternative for neuro-axial anesthesia. In this study we compared the severity of pain, patient satisfaction and side effects between two different types of labor analgesia. Methods. Eightyprimiparous patients ASA I or II, atterm pregnancy, were included in the study and divided in two groups. The first group (35 patients) received intravenous remifentanil on patient control pump in bolus doses. The second group (45 patients) received intermittent epidural boluses with highly diluted local anesthetic and opioid (Bupivacain and Fentanil). We analyzed oxygen saturation (SpO2), respiration rate, heart rate, blood pressure, sedation, nausea and vomiting as well as patient pain scores and satisfaction scores through 2 different VAS. Results. Mean SpO2 was significantly lower in the PCA remifentanil group 96.2%±1.6 versus 98.2±1.2 in the epidural group. Respiratory depression (RR<9 or SpO2 <90%) was not found in both groups. Sedation scores were significantly higher in the PCA remifentanil group, P<0.05. Incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar between the two groups, without significant difference. PCA remifentanil was inferior to epidural analgesia with respect to pain scores at all time points, but without significant difference in patient satisfaction between the two groups. Conclusion. Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil provides satisfactory level of labor analgesia, with lower SpO2 and more sedation. It could be an excellent alternative to epidural analgesia but continuous monitoring and oxygen supply is mandatory.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.